Grace v. Grace

3 Citing cases

  1. Harrison v. Morris

    133 S.E.2d 899 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 2 times

    The sole question rests upon the validity of the plaintiff's claim of title to the realty from which the logs were taken. It follows that for the plaintiff to recover, he must do so on the strength of his own title and not upon the weakness of the defendant's title. Grace v. Grace, 92 Ga. App. 693 ( 89 S.E.2d 813). 2.

  2. Dan E. Austin, Jr. Sons v. Hartford c. Co.

    130 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 1 times

    Such a verdict cannot be set aside because a different verdict would have been authorized. Scott v. Gillis, 202 Ga. 220 (2) ( 43 S.E.2d 95); Sweet v. Awtry, 70 Ga. App. 334 (1) ( 28 S.E.2d 154); Grace v. Grace, 92 Ga. App. 693 (2) ( 89 S.E.2d 813). Judgment affirmed. Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

  3. Turner v. McKee

    103 S.E.2d 658 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 4 times

    The deed referred to in the fourth special ground was utterly void as the conveyance of any particular property. Huntress v. Portwood, 116 Ga. 351 ( 42 S.E. 513); Farrar Lumber Co. v. Brindle, 170 Ga. 37 (5) ( 151 S.E. 923); Oglesby v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 195 Ga. 65 ( 23 S.E.2d 404); Paulk v. Perry, 44 Ga. App. 131 (1) ( 160 S.E. 681). The description of the 25 acres of land sought to be conveyed thereby was not rendered sufficiently definite by the inclusion, in the description of the lands conveyed of the words "known as the R. J. Boyd lands," since the evidence shows that any lands held by the plaintiff which he acquired from R. J. Boyd were cut off from a larger tract owned by R. J. Boyd. Grace v. Grace, 92 Ga. App. 693, 696 ( 89 S.E.2d 813). Furthermore, were this deed otherwise sufficient to convey any identifiable tract of land, it does not purport to convey the tract in dispute since it purported to convey land lying in land lot 255, whereas it is undisputed that the land here involved all lies in lot 227. For these reasons, the deed was not relevant and material to prove the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff had conveyed the property in dispute to others and it was, therefore, properly excluded.